I think I am the next step in human evolution. I will list some of the reasons that I believe this:

- I age much slower than anyone else I know. My bone structure, amount of facial/body hair, and social reasoning ability are all at the level of a 17 year old, whereas I am currently 20 years old. I have always lagged behind my peers physically and I have reason to believe that this will continue throughout my lifetime causing me to live and retain youthfulness for longer. Recent studies have found specific mutations in many different species that produce this slow-aging effect; it has been found in humans aswell but is extremely rare.

- I am more intelligent than most other humans. My intellect has granted me the title of "gifted", and has often left me feeling out of place with people my age. I think in very theoretical terms and am very capable with logical thinking. My mind works faster than I can express myself, thus leading to difficulty in conversation and writing, but causing me to excel in other areas such as math and computer programming.

- I am much taller than the average human. I am 6'4" which is a full foot taller than the mean of 5'4". I can draw parallels between less intelligent, (and now extinct) stocky Neanderthals and the taller, more intelligent (and very successful) Homo Sapiens.

- My immune system is superior. I spent a period of 6 months in South-east asia where everyone was wearing breathing masks due to rampant disease, and people were constantly getting sick. I got strep throat for a couple days but was otherwise healthy the whole time. I wasn't playing it safe at all, everyone else who I was with got sick for long periods of time at one point or another. That's the only time I've been ill in many years. The last time I got sick before that was when I was a child still in grade-school.

- My metabolism is much faster than most people. I (used to) eat greater amounts of food than a lot of people (even overweight people) and never seemed to gain weight. I've always been incredibly lean. Plus, I digest food faster than I've been told I should. I believe that superior uptake of minerals and nutrients into my cells may also contribute to the slow aging I described earlier.

- I am many times stronger than I look. As I've said, I'm very lean and I don't have a lot of muscle mass. But I often surprise people with my level of strength and have even beaten boxers and other strong-looking people at arm wrestling and other feats of strength. A recent study on mice have found a mutation that allowed certain mutants to run up to 50% faster and for 20 minutes longer than orinary mice (20 minutes is a long time for an animal who's maximum recored lifespan is 4 years). They didn't require any more food and looked very much the same as the normal mice. Maybe this isn't the same, but its evidence that simple genetic mutations can produce vastly superior physical traits.

- My eyesight is greater than average. I've never acually been tested exactly (because it's been beneficial and never a problem), but I'm able to see things and read signs much further away than people even with "perfect" 20/20 vision.

I believe that human evolution is shifting towards a human of greater intelligence and longevity and I'm pretty sure I'm a stepping stone above the rest in the advancement of human evolution. I would like to share this with someone - preferably an evolutionary biologist or someone with equal knowledge of evolution. I would be happy to take part in studies to further human knowledge in this area, but am unsure about how to approach something like this. All I'm looking for here is input and discussion on this subject, and similar stories if anyone out there has one. Thanks for your time.

I had a lot of things typed up, but decided against it. There were also a lot of tangents. I will sum it all up into a sentence or two for each part. And do not take offense.

Aging slowly - Can be good or bad, but there is no evidence to suggest it is good, or that you are aging slowly. It also has to occur on a large scale, it will be unnoticeable otherwise. So it is irrelevant.

Intelligence - You lack other abilities which seem to be what our species requires. Intelligence is great for science, and therefore us if you accomplish anything, but it is irrelevant to us as a species otherwise. If you have both, that's great for society, if you do anything with it.

Height - Good and bad, as well. Being taller seems to come with more cardiac problems, the heart works harder, though it more noticeable in those with gigantism. Being taller is irrelevant. Someone shorter than you can be more adaptive, and therefore you are maldaptive and inferior. Having more of something doesn't mean you are better.

Immune system - Can be good or bad, having a superior one. Some theories suggests, for instance, have a tapewarm is an adaptive quality, because it lowers our immune system. It is believed that our immune systems are too powerful, currently. There are other theories with other parasites, bacteria, etc along with it. The immunology subject is really too large to be summarized to something this short (For instance, taking immunology in college would take you at least two semesters, depending).

Metabolism - Great, but can be good or bad. If the temperatures for the planet drop ~10C, that's bad for you, because you need more weight, in general. Granted, humans live in houses/shelter. But still. There are other reasons for having some weight, but more for the ability to put on weight. Those with that capability are more adaptive than you. The reverse can be true, too. Reiterating... that's not a step in evolution.

Strength - Irrelevant, again. It is impossible to say whether it is adaptive or maladaptive. It is great to have, but is it a progressive step, something that would become the norm in humans? Who knows. Unless there is a life-threatening reason for it, it won't matter.

Eyesight - Is great, but irrelevant unless having a better eyesight than 20/20 is required. Again, not a step.

Evolution is more complicated than simply having better of something that we currently have. Unless there is a reason for having it, none of it matters. It does not mean you are superior to anyone. You could be inferior to someone shorter, less strength, etc.

Also, there are no steps in evolution in that way you use it, as everyone is a step toward evolution. It just matters what traits are needed to survive or not. Furthermore, nothing in evolution is fact or for certain. There is also no need to evolve, no force exerted by us or any other factor, nothing. It simply happens because the traits allow that individual to survive. Nothing is decided, either. Humans can be selective for traits, picking what they want, but as for evolution, it is irrelevant.

As for a personal touch - My father has a high IQ. My brother does as well. They are both considered geniuses. My mother is gifted. My IQ is superior to my family. My father is an engineer and major in the U.S. Army Reserve. My brother... is lazy. He does nothing but play video games. That is not a quality someone should find attractive. He is trying to go to community college in the spring, so at least that is a good thing.

As for myself, I am a lot of things, as stated in my sig. I enjoy science. I also enjoy anthropology. Intelligence is something I do not lack, but while great for my work and etc, what relevance does it have to being a new step in evolution? Of course, as I stated, all things are a step, but in particular, what is so great about my intelligence that it would be what our species depends on? Not much, really.

I am of average height, but I do not need to be taller, there is no reason for it. My immune system is fine, I rarely get sick, but does it make that much of a difference? I am not sure, really. Not as far as evolution is concerned, that is.

My metabolism is fine, but I put on weight. There's reasons for it I won't discuss at the moment, but does having a higher metabolism matter that much, without a reason for it? Not in our society.

And I could go on with all the traits that I have, all of them coming down to... Are they required for survival or not? Do my traits mater in the long run?

As a species, some anthropologists debate on whether we are evolving or not. Obviously we are, it's always happening. But what I mean is how much of change. There isn't really a need right now for any trait over the other. We're pretty stagnant as a species. If we were out in the wild, evolution would be more obvious. But currently, with all that we have, there's not that many large changes. Nothing that would majorly matter. At least in my opinion.

I guess it could all be down to... Why do you think any of those traits would be beneficial to a species?

JackBean wrote: If you're so intelligent, are you already finished with University at your age? Did you do already some real research or just chating online?

I've only recently discovered that I fit the profile of a gifted person. I've spent most of my life isolating myself from others because I felt different and have always assumed I was bad or wrong or something. It turns out that almost every social problem I've ever had was due to the fact that my mental age was far ahead of my peers; if you google "problems gifted children face" you'll find basically the definition of my entire childhood. I've never been able to fully utilize my potential because of many of these problems, but that doesn't mean that I don't have genetically impressive mental capabilities. I haven't finished university; I actually dropped out because I found my classes too easy. I already know a lot of the information they teach in many subjects up to the 3rd year level and find it nearly impossible to sit through the really slow-paced lectures. I'm currently in the process of setting myself up as an entrepreneur and am planning on finishing my education on-line so that I can move at the faster speed that I naturally work at.

JackBean wrote: If you're so intelligent, you could use metric system as rest of the world. Anyway, I'm about 1.95 m (so probably even taller than you ) and I'm not even extra tall in comparison to other people.

Intelligence and the system of measurement I use have absolutely no correlation. I am Canadian, and we do use the metric system, however for some reason when we talk about our height we still use the imperial system. I am 1.93 metres tall, so yes you are slightly taller than me, well done. You say you aren't tall compared to others? 95% of the world's population is shorter than 190cm, which means that you and I are in the tallest 5%.

JackBean wrote: yep, I've spend 3 months in Japan during the bird-flu break and didn't get sick either. I'm usually dressed little less than others, does that make me superior? Not really, just little weatherproof.

Japan is a first-world country with vastly superior medical technology and expertise compared with Malaysia. Plus the bird flu really wasn't the only concern while I was there, disease was everywhere and hygiene was terrible. But I only mentioned that trip because that is the only time I've been sick since I was a young child, and I wanted to explain the situation a little. I wasn't trying to impress anyone by saying I survived a trip to South-East Asia.

JackBean wrote:Since my childhood I've been said I must have tapeworm, since I eat so much and am so slight Am I superior? Cool! Although I think that's rather disadvantage.

How is that a disadvantage? Having efficient nutrient intake is a very advantageous ability. There are some people that gain weight, and are unable to stay healthy despite eating healthy and exercising. I don't really do either and yet I've got very low cholesterol, have a healthy body-mass index, low blood-pressure, etc. That doesn't seem like an advantage?

Not at all! The only reason I came here was to have a discussion, the more you disagree the greater the learning opportunity. I'm glad you took the time to write so much.

ChesneMD wrote:Aging slowly - Can be good or bad, but there is no evidence to suggest it is good, or that you are aging slowly. It also has to occur on a large scale, it will be unnoticeable otherwise. So it is irrelevant.

Aging slowly isn't necessarily good for animal species, since overpopulation can lead to food shortages and eventually extinction of a species. This may eventually be the fate of humankind as well, but I'm optimistic and can see our species overcoming these limitations. Regardless, when I say "evolutionary step forward" I'm talking about desirable genetic advancements. Things that we would wish on ourselves. I suppose that this doesn't exactly fit with the Darwinian definition of evolution, but we are a very different species than the other animals of this planet. How we evolve now (at least the way I see it) is really not for survival any more, but for our own betterment as individuals. If I look like a 30 year old when I'm 40, I will have much better chances of finding mates and passing on my genes. As for the lack of evidence that I myself am aging slowly, you're right, I don't really have any. I've recently watched a TED talk by Cynthia Kenyon who has discovered a simple genetic mutation existing in many species that has the potential to almost double lifespan (not just by delaying death, but actually slowing the aging process altogether). She found that certain human populations have this mutation and are generally the ones living to be older than 100. I don't know for sure if this is relevant to the evolution of humankind, but I'd like to think it is.

ChesneMD wrote:Intelligence - You lack other abilities which seem to be what our species requires. Intelligence is great for science, and therefore us if you accomplish anything, but it is irrelevant to us as a species otherwise. If you have both, that's great for society, if you do anything with it.

When you say I lack other abilities, what are you referring to? Was it the fact that I said that I have difficulty with conversation and writing? I guess I should have explained a little bit. I write better than most people I know, but I dislike it because there is no certainty whereas in mathematics and computer programming there is a clearly defined right and wrong. I also generally think of multiple things to write but can only get one thought down before another few ideas crop up. So even though I can write well, I don't write to the standard I wish I could. And as for conversation, I have amazing discussions with the few people I know who are intelligent enough to keep up with me, but most people just make small-talk and really aren't that interesting, it's them who I have trouble talking to. Again, you mention that it's irrelevant for us as a species, but is it really? We have put ourselves on a path that seems very likely to end in the extinction of most species on earth, including us. The only foreseeable way off of this path is for us to figure out how to overcome it. We need to learn and discover and think to survive. We may one day expand to other planets in order to combat problems like overpopulation and dwindling resources. Even before we can accomplish this we will likely need to find solutions to other issues that will plague us further in the future. These are things that we need great intellect for, and I believe that we need to become smarter as a species to make these dreams a reality.

ChesneMD wrote:Height - Good and bad, as well. Being taller seems to come with more cardiac problems, the heart works harder, though it more noticeable in those with gigantism. Being taller is irrelevant. Someone shorter than you can be more adaptive, and therefore you are maldaptive and inferior. Having more of something doesn't mean you are better.

You're totally right, the height thing really doesn't have many evident advantages. I guess I just mentioned it because it's one more thing that sets me apart, and I'm really just curious if it has any ties to the other traits I've mentioned. I wasn't trying to say that I'm better I was just looking for input as to whether or not this was significant.

ChesneMD wrote: Immune system - Can be good or bad, having a superior one. Some theories suggests, for instance, have a tapewarm is an adaptive quality, because it lowers our immune system. It is believed that our immune systems are too powerful, currently. There are other theories with other parasites, bacteria, etc along with it. The immunology subject is really too large to be summarized to something this short (For instance, taking immunology in college would take you at least two semesters, depending).

I confess I don't know a whole lot about immunology, but I have a hard time believing that one can have too powerful an immune system. The greater the immune system, the fewer the diseases, the higher the rate of survival, no?

ChesneMD wrote: Metabolism - Great, but can be good or bad. If the temperatures for the planet drop ~10C, that's bad for you, because you need more weight, in general. Granted, humans live in houses/shelter. But still. There are other reasons for having some weight, but more for the ability to put on weight. Those with that capability are more adaptive than you. The reverse can be true, too. Reiterating... that's not a step in evolution

Yes, if the temperature of the planet drops 10 degrees, then a lot of **** is going to go down. We and all other species on earth are adapted to the current environment, so if that happened there would be problems for every species. However, I should point out that I live in Canada where it is very cold, and I have no problem surviving. Humankind has overcome the problem of cold through superior intellect. But having a higher metabolism is beneficial in the current environment, and in the current society. It allows me to live a more relaxing lifestyle while still being able to attract mates and reproduce frequently (not that I am reproducing frequently, but you see my point). Modern society values health and body-shape, and therefore those that are naturally healthy and lean have greater Darwinian fitness. Beyond this though, high metabolism is just good for health and life, it increases energy during the day, makes for better sleep at night, and helps prevent excess fat build-up.

ChesneMD wrote:Strength - Irrelevant, again. It is impossible to say whether it is adaptive or maladaptive. It is great to have, but is it a progressive step, something that would become the norm in humans? Who knows. Unless there is a life-threatening reason for it, it won't matter.

I can't see a way that having greater strength with less required energy or training is maladaptive. You say its great to have, so therefore wouldn't it be something that people would look for in mates? I don't believe that there needs to be life-threatening reasons for natural selection. Mating choice plays a prominent role. But when it comes to life-threatening situations, when would having superior natural strength put you at a disadvantage? If you fall off a cliff but grab on to the edge just in time, that extra strength could save your life. Or in a war, where thousands of people die, those who are stronger are much more likely to survive. Strength may not play the biggest role in natural selection, but it is definitely a factor.

ChesneMD wrote:Eyesight - Is great, but irrelevant unless having a better eyesight than 20/20 is required. Again, not a step.

You're right, better eyesight is not required. But it is helpful. I'm sure it means the difference in many driving or hunting accidents. Even if a few people live because of better eyesight then it has affected the evolution of the species.

ChesneMD wrote:Evolution is more complicated than simply having better of something that we currently have. Unless there is a reason for having it, none of it matters. It does not mean you are superior to anyone. You could be inferior to someone shorter, less strength, etc.

I understand that evolution is complicated, but the general trend in evolution is betterment of the species through mutation. You seem to define evolution as something that increases the survival of the species as a whole, but there is more to it than that. If a single individual has greater chances of reproduction because of a genetic mutation, then that mutation can and will play a role in the future evolution of that species (as long as that trait can be passed along).

ChesneMD wrote:As for a personal touch - My father has a high IQ. My brother does as well. They are both considered geniuses. My mother is gifted. My IQ is superior to my family. My father is an engineer and major in the U.S. Army Reserve. My brother... is lazy. He does nothing but play video games. That is not a quality someone should find attractive. He is trying to go to community college in the spring, so at least that is a good thing

People with exceptional intelligence are often underachievers who have trouble functioning in society. I've been the same way for a lot of my life. This is due mostly to the fact that society is built a certain way for a certain group of people, and if you don't lie within that group you are going to struggle. One analogy would be to let a family of monkeys raise a human child. That human child has the capability of being much more intelligent than the monkeys but it will probably grow up have serious mental issues and won't ever be able to live up to its full potential. This is much more extreme than a gifted human being raised in and around average humans, but it still works.

Anyway, I've probably gone into way too much detail in this reply. Don't feel that you need to respond in kind, I just enjoy discussing these things.

Two of you here claim superior intelligence. I have a question for you about longevity.

Longevity has two components – genetic and environmental. IamAnAlien said“I believe that human evolution is shifting towards a human of greater intelligence and longevity”.

How do you know how much of the apparent increase in life span is due to genetic changes (product of evolution) and how much is due to environmental conditions (lessening of negative selection pressures)? Isn’t it just as possible that if you were to transplant a newborn from 300 years ago into today’s society, he/she would live much longer than average of our time?

Cat wrote:Two of you here claim superior intelligence. I have a question for you about longevity.

Longevity has two components – genetic and environmental. IamAnAlien said“I believe that human evolution is shifting towards a human of greater intelligence and longevity”.

How do you know how much of the apparent increase in life span is due to genetic changes (product of evolution) and how much is due to environmental conditions (lessening of negative selection pressures)? Isn’t it just as possible that if you were to transplant a newborn from 300 years ago into today’s society, he/she would live much longer than average of our time?

I don't claim superior intelligence, but tests suggest I am. I know that I know more academics and etc than most people, but I don't think I am more intelligent. I hate even saying I am smart, because unless prompted, I act like a goofball. I don't take life seriously unless there is a reason.

As for the quote you selected from Alien - What reason would intelligence and longevity have for being traits that are being selected for? I, personally and many anthropologists believe, that we are at a point currently where we are, reiterating, stagnant. We will see localized changes, but nothing as a species. And with so many people of varying intelligence who are allowed to breed, why would intelligence become a trait? We're not competing. The same can perhaps be said of an increased lifespan, where does it matter? If you live to 100, what does it matter? It does nothing for you or anything else, especially for women since they can no longer reproduce. And as Cat says, to which I vehemently agree, there are environmental factors to account for. I think currently it is mostly environmental. And how often does a person reach the oldest age they can before succumbing to any disease or anything else? I don't think it matters much anymore, how long a person lives.

As for Cat - Nothing much at all, except for they may be slightly shorter, but it wouldn't be noticeable really, IMO. I cannot speak about the difference in genetics, I tried to look for it while typing this, even speaking to some of my colleagues, and we cannot decide what would be different. There are small changes, such as immunology, etc. But we don't think you'd notice anything. And there are vaccines and etc today. Like I said earlier, many anthropologists feel we are stagnant. But at the same time, evolution on a large scale is slow. And the way we are, it slows it even more.

When we have all these companies playing with chemicals and altering the food for us and the animals that supply us with products which we depend on to live, we have to include this also as a factor for your so called "Evolution". I see chemicals introduced into all kinds of livestock, our foods and even our baby formulas that tamper with our biological make up more and more. I say you can not say we are "evolving" when we ourselves are tampering with factors,including our food, our environment, ourselves, that interrupts this process that most of you guys so valiantly defend with your pride. If we have "evolved" into anything, it would be we have to be a disease to the Earth. We are continuously striving for this "God status" of all knowing with immortality , when all along forgetting where we came from. We truly are a species with amnesia. We have also forgotten what science is all about. It is quite simply, the finding of what is truth and what is false in our rationing. And whats more, we are a poor example of "Evolution" but yet our schools and our so called "scientists" refuse to look at what is obvious because of, in my opinion, pride. There is so much that we would have to rewrite and admit that we are so wrong. What happened to the old saying "To err is human"? I do not have a fancy college degree nor do I have vast knowledge in any scientific field and I am very thankful for that. I am not caged and boxed in, nor do I have a perimeter which I have to limit myself to think. I am a free thinker who, once again; in my opinion, a true scientist. I have no quarrels to admit if I'm wrong or not. I want to know the truth. I want to know the true hows and whys and not some BS that some college professor told me. I refuse to believe that we came from nothing, that all of this immense universe just happened. Does the Chaos Theory apply here? In every thread that I read on here, I noted many, many factors that no one even thought to include in their replies. And the biggest and foremost factor is US. We have tampered with so much that we have diluted and tainted our own rationing to the point that the big debate of "Evolution or Adaptation " is irrelevant. Why is it that we can look at statue and realize that intelligence created that. Then we can look at a canyon and realize there is no recognizable pattern there therefore, nature created it. Why is it that we know the odds are slim to none, as to throw letters up in the air and when they hit the ground a word would form...let alone a complete sentence or better yet a book and whats more a library. But yet you want me to believe that outta of random circumstances, and by pure chance, DNA contains all the information that a cell structure needs to form a living, animated being. We know better and our logic rationalize this, and we have that ability to logically think this through. We have that kind of processing power to figure that out. But it seems that our damned prides just get in the way to even toy with the notion that something more intelligent than us could might have actually created all of this. No... we have this need, built into us, (the God gene) to think that there is no one or thing out there that is smarter then us. Uncanny, to think that science refuses to acknowledge a higher intelligence but yet strives for that very thing. To all "scientists",in every field, I challenge you to find out how "Evolution" created all this incredible library of info that it takes to create Life. And then if you luck out on that, figure out what actually caused the "Big Bang". There are so many Lorenz Attractors in both of these questions, that it would be the ultimate achievement for any and all.

I have no problem with what you said, Ski. In fact, I feel that way a lot of the time.

And to keep this short, the M-Theory is what is believed to caused not just one big bang, but many. That said, what developed these dimensions for the M-Theory? It''s continuously coming to the same question. "What preceded this?"

The M-Theory is an excellent proposal to try and tie up the loose ends, so to speak. But as you, and I for that matter, asked; What preceded this? What caused these strings to collide to began with. And what is actually contain with in these different dimensions. What I'm trying to get at is... what does an eleven sided cube look like? LOL I completely agree with parallel dimensions and with that, the possibilities of existing beings to occupy these dimensions. If I was building something, I would need some type of skeletal structure that would reinforce my structure so it would not collapse within itself. I believe theses strands collide all the time, by the decisions we make. But, thats on a spiritual level, which I feel that is thoroughly involved within these inner dimensions that are put forth. If we can come up with these ideas, whats wrong with being able to say that other beings can come up with the same idea. And if thats the case, maybe their intelligence is way far more advanced then ours. Its the same as saying I know this one guy and his thought process is way more then I can fathom. Am I jealous or do I feel inferior to him? Maybe, but I would want to learn from him. I feel it is time we realize that we need to start to look at things more closer in the obvious way. If we look back into history, it is arrogant for us to say that past civilizations weren't as advanced as ours. They have built massive monuments that have with stood from their time to ours. Their structures incorporate technologies that still baffle us. Now, what do we have? Mt. Rushmore? And 3000 yrs from now, if the Earth has not ravaged Mt. Rushmore, they might be able to look at it and say intelligence built that. I have looked into things deeply and tried to say well we'll figure out how they did it. Science will solve this one, but we are still no closer on this than we were when we first looked at them. If we could open our minds up a lil more and include the factor that they might have been more advanced then we give them credit or that they might have had a lil help from other sources. We would see that it opens many possibilities. Where is the artifacts and records of this? Good questions. But I read, everyday, about how governments and churches have shut down this dig and have confiscated this find and denied this dig. This is our world and need to know and have these artifacts so we can start understanding ourselves and the universe we live in better and more completely. All I really ask for is for all to not think just inside the box but also outside, also. If we propose and accept the possibilities of new dimensions then whats wrong with the thought of manipulation of these dimensions also. Are we not tampering with genetics? Maybe someone else was tampering with dimensions long before we were thought up, oops sorry...before we evolved. LOL Just a thought.